lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] livepatch: introduce shadow variable API
Date
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com> writes:

> On 08/18/2017 10:04 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
>> On Fri 2017-08-18 15:44:29, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>>> Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> +
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * klp_shadow_get() - retrieve a shadow variable data pointer
>>>> + * @obj: pointer to parent object
>>>> + * @id: data identifier
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Return: the shadow variable data element, NULL on failure.
>>>> + */
>>>> +void *klp_shadow_get(void *obj, unsigned long id)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct klp_shadow *shadow;
>>>> +
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> +
>>>> + hash_for_each_possible_rcu(klp_shadow_hash, shadow, node,
>>>> + (unsigned long)obj) {
>>>> +
>>>> + if (klp_shadow_match(shadow, obj, id)) {
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> + return shadow->data;
>>>
>>> I had to think a moment about what protects shadow from getting freed by
>>> a concurrent detach after that rcu_read_unlock(). Then I noticed that if
>>> obj and the livepatch are alive, then so is shadow, because there
>>> obviously hasn't been any reason to detach it.
>>>
>>> So maybe it would be nice to have an additional comment at
>>> klp_shadow_detach() that it's the API user's responsibility not to use a
>>> shadow instance after detaching it...
>
> Nicolai, I can add something like "This function releases the memory for
> this shadow variable instance, callers should stop referencing it
> accordingly." Similar text for klp_shadow_detach_all().

Perfect, thanks!


>> Good point. In fact, it might make sense to rename the functions:
>>
>> attach -> create
>> detach -> destroy
>>
>> The name detach suggests that the variable is just not connected to
>> the parent object but that it is still accessible/usable.
>
> FWIW, kpatch calls them "kpatch_shadow_alloc" and "kpatch_shadow_free".
> Now that it's clear that we're not going separate shadow variable
> allocation from hash table insertion, going back to alloc/create and
> destroy/free is fine w/me.

--
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-18 16:47    [W:0.044 / U:2.652 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site